TB6-05616
The RAD must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) of IRPA bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a country designated under subsection 102(1) that is party to the agreement in paragraph 102(2)(d) (here, the USA) and the claim was nonetheless eligible by regulation;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB6-05616
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Jurisdiction — Appeal Considered and Dismissed by RAD
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction Under S.110(2)(d) IRPA, Designation of Countries Under S.102 IRPA, Safe Third Country Agreement, Eligibility and Ineligibility Under Paragraph 101(1)(e) and Related Regulations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Jurisdiction — Appeal Considered and Dismissed by RAD
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s.110(2)(d) IRPA
- 2 Whether the claimant came from a country designated under s.102 and party to an agreement under paragraph 102(2)(d)
- 3 Whether the claimant's claim was eligible by regulation such that the statutory bar in s.110(2)(d) applies
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because s.110(2)(d) of IRPA bars appeals from RPD decisions where the claimant came from a country designated under subsection 102(1) that is party to the agreement in paragraph 102(2)(d) (here, the USA) and the claim was nonetheless eligible by regulation; the claimant came from the USA and was eligible, so no appeal lies to the RAD.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under s.110(2)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-05616 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision May 10, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Luis F. Agostinho Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Jack C. Martin Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "Person"). [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by the RAD on April 22, 2016. The Person is appealing a decision of the RPD dated April 13, 2016 with written reasons received on April 19, 2016 rejecting her claim for refugee protection. [3] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal is in respect of a decision by the RPD for which no appeal may be made under s.110(2)(d) of the amended Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This section states the following: 110. (2) No appeal may be made in respect of any of the following: (d) subject to the regulations, a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of a claim for refugee protection if (i) the foreign national who makes the claim came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country that is, on the day on which their claim is made, designated by regulations made under subsection 102(1) and that is a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d), and (ii) the claim-by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 102(1)(c)-is not ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division; [4] The only country that is designated by regulation and party to an agreement under paragraph 102(2)(d) of the IRPA is the United States of America (USA). The Person in this case came directly from the USA but was nonetheless eligible to make a claim by virtue of the regulations. Therefore, under paragraph 110(2)(d) of the IRPA, no appeal may be made in respect of the RPD's decision. [5] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (signed) "Luis F. Agostinho" Luis F. Agostinho May 10, 2016 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB6-05616